Ex Parte Busse et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201814330432 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/330,432 07/14/2014 24938 7590 05/25/2018 FCA US LLC CIMS 483-02-19 800 CHRYSLER DR EAST AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326-2757 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Klaus Busse UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 709320US1 6984 EXAMINER DANG, PHILIP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): chris.davenport@fcagroup.com michelle.madak@fcagroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KLAUS BUSSE, TIMOTHY W. GROGAN, GLENN W. ABBOTT, CECILE M. GIROUX and KENNETH E. ZALEWSKI Appeal2017-010891 Application 14/330,432 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-15, and 17, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, and 16. Ans. 30. Appeal2017-010891 Application 14/330,432 According to the Specification, the present invention relates to a disassociated articulatable display device for a vehicle interior. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A display system for a vehicle, the display system comprising: a display device including a screen and a housing; a pivot coupling adapted to pivotably couple the display device to an instrument panel of the vehicle such that the display device is non removably spaced apart from the instrument panel and articulatable relative thereto; and an electronically controlled locking arrangement associated with the pivot coupling and display device, the locking arrangement configured to i) be selectively activated to lock the pivot coupling to lock a position of the display device relative to the instrument panel, and ii) be selectively deactivated to unlock the pivot coupling to allow for articulation of the display device relative to the instrument panel, wherein the unlocked pivot coupling enables a manipulation force to move the display device to a desired position relative to the instrument panel, the display device remaining in the desired position after the manipulation force is removed. References and Rejections Claim 1-2, 5-6, and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor (US 7,489,303 Bl; issued Feb. 10, 2009), Eldershaw (US 7,852,626 B2; issued Dec. 14, 2010), and Kamer (US 8,743,203 B2; issued June 3, 2014). Claims 12-15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor, Eldershaw, Kamer, and Heath (US 6,272,428 B 1; issued Aug. 7, 2001 ). 2 Appeal2017-010891 Application 14/330,432 ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-17, 23-36) and (ii) the Answer (Ans. 30-68) to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below. 2 On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. I Appellants contend Pryor, Eldershaw, and Kamer do not collectively teach "a pivot coupling adapted to pivotably couple the display device to an instrument panel of the vehicle," as recited in claim 1. See Br. 7-9. In particular, Appellants argue Pryor does not teach the limitation because "the Pryor touch screen is fixed relative to the instrument panel, and merely includes knobs or sliders that can pivot with respect to the screen." Br. 8. Appellants contend Eldershaw does not teach the disputed limitation because in Eldershaw, "support tray ... is ... not pivotally coupled to rigid base." Br. 8. Appellants argue "Kamer is merely cited as teaching a movable sun visor (594) with a display screen (596). Thus Kamer does not teach a pivotable coupling to an instrument panel." Br. 9. Appellants argue "Pryor teaches away from allowing articulatable movement of the screen .... As such, Pryor does not [teach] pivotably couple a display device to an instrument panel of the vehicle." Br. 8. Appellants have not persuaded us of error. 2 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). 3 Appeal2017-010891 Application 14/330,432 First, in response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner provides further findings showing Kamer teaches "a pivot coupling adapted to pivotably couple the display device to an instrument panel of the vehicle." See Ans. 36. In particular, the Examiner cites excerpts from Kamer's columns 1 and 17 and finds they teach that limitation. See Ans. 36. Appellants fail to respond to such findings. Therefore, Appellants fail to show error in such findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art."). Second, Appellants' teaching away argument is unpersuasive because Appellants fail to provide adequate analysis under the case law. In particular, Appellants fail to assert-let alone show-Pryor's disclosures "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed in the ... application." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nor have Appellants shown one skilled in the art "would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). II Appellants contend Pryor, Eldershaw, and Kamer do not collectively teach "wherein the unlocked pivot coupling enables a manipulation force to move the display device to a desired position relative to the instrument panel, the display device remaining in the desired position after the manipulation force is removed," as recited in claim 1. See Br. 7-10. In 4 Appeal2017-010891 Application 14/330,432 particular, Appellants argue Pryor does not teach the limitation because it "merely allows small movement of the screen to absorb excitation of the screen." Br. 8. Appellants contend Eldershaw does not teach the disputed limitation because in Eldershaw, "the display is biased to a resting position and returns to the resting position once the tactile force is removed from the screen." Br. 9. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they are not directed to the Examiner's specific findings. Because the Examiner relies on the combination of Pryor, Kamer and Eldershaw to teach the disputed claim limitation, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking Pryor or Eldershaw individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, the Examiner cites excerpts from Kamer's column 38 and Eldershaw's column 7, and determines the cited portions collectively teach the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 6-7. Br. 9. III Appellants argue: [T]he locking system described in Eldershaw is merely utilized to prevent a user's face from inadvertently activating a tactile response through switches (39) (col. 13, Ins. 5-20). As such, Eldershaw does not describe a locking system to lock a display device in a desired position relative to a vehicle instrument panel. Kamer is merely cited as teaching a movable sun visor ( 594) with a display screen ( 596). Thus Kamer does not teach ... movement of sun visor (594) can be locked, as required by claim 1. 5 Appeal2017-010891 Application 14/330,432 Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, as claim 1 does not recite "a locking system to lock a display device in a desired position relative to a vehicle instrument panel," as Appellants assert (Br. 9). To the extent Appellants are arguing the limitation "lock a position of the display device relative to the instrument panel," Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they are not directed to the Examiner's specific findings, which cite Eldershaw's column 14 for teaching that limitation. See Final Act. 6. IV Appellants argue "no apparent reason has been identified that would motivate a skilled artisan to arrive at the modifications necessary to achieve the claimed invention." Br. 9; see also Br. 10. Appellants' argument contradicts the record, as the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Pryor, Eldershaw, and Kamer. See Final Act. 7. Additionally, in response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner provides further explanation showing why one skilled in the art would have modified Pryor's system to incorporate Eldershaw's and Kamer's features. See Ans. 43. Appellants do not dispute such explanation. Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 13. Appellants advance arguments similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1 (Br. 16-18), which are unpersuasive for the reasons stated above. 6 Appeal2017-010891 Application 14/330,432 We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent claims 6, 8-11, 14, 15, and 17, as Appellants do not advance separate substantive arguments regarding those claims. Separately Argued Dependent Claims Regarding dependent claim 2, Appellants argue "the Office has not provided any reason for modifying Pryor to include the features of Eldershaw and Kamer" and "[t]he Examiner provides no reasoning for how a skilled artisan would take ... Kamer ... somehow modify the display of Pryor, . . . and then somehow incorporate the supposed locking device of Eldershaw . . . into the pivot coupling described in Kamer." Br. 11. Appellants' argument contradicts the record, as the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Pryor, Eldershaw, and Kamer. See Final Act. 8. Additionally, in response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner provides further explanation showing why one skilled in the art would have modified Pryor's system to incorporate Eldershaw's and Kamer's features. See Ans. 43--44. Appellants do not dispute such explanation. Further, the Examiner's findings and conclusion are reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). Appellants do not present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious 7 Appeal2017-010891 Application 14/330,432 step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 2. Dependent claim 5 recites: The display system of claim 1, further comprising an actuator associated with the display device, the actuator in communication with the electronically controlled locking arrangement and configured to be actuated to selectively activate and deactivate the electronically controlled locking arrangement. Claim 5. Appellants argue: [T]he Examiner merely cites an entire page of language from Eldershaw randomly underlining and balding various sections. Nowhere does any of this cited language describe or suggest that actuators (108) or their connected switches (39) are utilized to activate or deactivate an electronically controlled locking arrangement. Rather, Eldershaw merely states switches (39) are used for "providing additional input and for providing tactile feedback to a user when pressing on the touchsensitive overlay 34" (col. 8, Ins. 8-11 ). Appeal Br. 12. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they are not directed to the Examiner's specific findings. The Examiner cites the combination of Pryor and Eldershaw to teach claim 5, and Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking Eldershaw individually. See Merck & Co., 800 F .2d at 1097; Final Act. 9-11. In particular, the Examiner cites excerpts from Pryor's column 22 and Eldershaw's columns 9 and 10, and determines they collectively teach claim 5. See Final Act. 9-11. 8 Appeal2017-010891 Application 14/330,432 Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 5. Dependent claim 12 recites: The display system of claim 1, further comprising a controller in communication with the display device, the electronically controlled locking arrangement, and a vehicle ignition system; wherein the controller is configured to selectively activate the electronically controlled locking arrangement upon receiving a signal from the vehicle ignition system indicative of the ignition system being placed in an accessory or run position; and wherein the controller is configured to selectively deactivate the electronically controlled locking arrangement upon receipt of a signal from a switch associated with the electronically controlled locking arrangement indicative of actuation of the switch. Claim 12. Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown how Heath teaches claim 12 and "Heath merely describes an ignition system for energizing an ignition coil of an internal combustion engine." Br. 19--20. Appellants contend "no apparent reason has been identified that would motivate a skilled artisan to arrive at the modifications necessary to achieve the claimed invention." Br. 20. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they are not directed to the Examiner's specific findings. The Examiner relies on the combination of Pryor, Eldershaw, Kamer, and Heath to teach claim 12, and Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking Heath individually. See Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097; Final Act. 23-27. In particular, the Examiner cites excerpts from Pryor's column 83, Eldershaw's columns 3, 7, 9 Appeal2017-010891 Application 14/330,432 12-14, 16, and Heath's columns 3 and 4, and determines they collectively teach claim 12. See Final Act. 23-27. Appellants' argument that "no apparent reason has been identified" (Br. 20) contradicts the record, as the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Pryor, Eldershaw, Kamer, and Heath. See Final Act. 27. Additionally, in response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner provides further explanation showing why one skilled in the art would have modified Pryor's system to incorporate the features ofEldershaw, Kamer, and Heath. See Ans. 67---68. Appellants do not dispute such explanation. Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 12. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-15, and 17. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation